North Carolina's Republican Congresswoman Julia Howard picked up more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver. Now she's repaying those that helped elect her and her fellow Republicans by passing a bill that threatens to kill municipal internet projects and North Carolina citizens' right to self-governance. (Source: North Carolina Congress)

The bill contains language that would allow a state board to overall local citizens right to self-governance by giving them the discretion to prohibit services that passed a local vote. (Source: Union County Public Schools)

Measure allows state officials to deny local citizens the right to self-governance

Telecom
giants in North Carolina have been lobbying hard for several years now to try
to stomp out municipal internet, phone, and cable
television services that threatened their local monopolies or duopolies.
The effort looked at risk when they lost the support of Democrats this
year, but thanks to some dedicated lobbying they managed to firmly convince the
Republican majority to restrict local government's rights and enact a measure
that presents a barrier to competitive municipal services.

North Carolina's State House has voted today to pass a critical bill, H.128 [PDF], by a
margin of 81 to 37. The bill, at face value, installs significant hurdles
towards providing citizens municipal services.

The bill was instigated by several towns/municipalities installing local
government-backed services to offer citizens an alternative to local
monopolies/duopolies. Fed up with slow internet, limited cable channels,
and high service costs, citizens banded together and pushed local officials to
create municipal internet, cable TV, and phone services.

Places with such a service include Wilson, North Carolina (Greenlight,
Inc.), Salisbury (Fibrant), Davidson (MI-Connection), and Morganton (CoMPAS
Cable TV & Internet).

While the service was ratified by the municipal council/board, the projects
were typically initiated on behalf of numerous complaints about local service
providers' fees. The municipal services' development spanned multiple
years giving citizens time to vote politicians out of office if they didn't
like the idea. Further, many of the cities held town hall meetings
gathering feedback. Most citizens voiced enthusiastic support when the
plan was clarified.

Under most of the current efforts, the city government first goes out and seeks
loans in the private sector. Typically these loans fall within the range
of $25M-$45M USD.

After obtaining loans, the local government then contracts private sector firms
to install necessary infrastructure to create a competitive network to the
local phone, cable television, or internet service.

Once installed the service is operated as an independent entity.

The services so far have been a great asset to communities. In Wilson,
residents enjoy 10 Mbps internet from their municipality for $35/month, where
they would have to pay $57/month to receive equivalent service from Time
Warner, Inc. (TWX).
Further, businesses are offered a 1 Gbps line by the municipality --
something Time Warner claimed it's unable to offer at any price.

In short, the service seemed like a win for citizens. The only clear
loser seemed to be telecoms, which were forced to cut their prices and reduce
their profits with the dissolution of their local monopolies.

II. Cracking Down on Municipal Internet

Politicians like Rep.
Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell) contend that the municipal
internet projects are unnecessary and worse yet can represent a malicious
interest to business. Rep.
Marilyn Avila(R-Wake), who along with Rep. Howard co-sponsored the
bill, says that legislation was needed to prevent "predatory"
challenges to the private sector.

Indeed the bill's language is carefully worded to portray this side of the
story. It is entitled "Level Playing Field/Local Gov't
Competition". Its advocates claim that it will not ban municipal
internet outright, but simply force them to "compete" with local
telecoms.

As usual, there are always two sides of a story, however.

Critics point out that companies like Time Warner (cable internet), Embarq (DSL
internet), AT&T (T)
(cable TV), and CenturyLink, Inc. (CTL)
(phone) have poured millions into lobbying the federal government to pass the
initiative.

Many of the Republican congressmen sponsoring the bill reportedly received
direct campaign donations from these companies. For example bill
co-sponsor Rep. Howard is accused of receiving $4,000 from CenturyLink, $750 from Time
Warner, and $1,500 from AT&T.

Critics say that even more money may be funneled through private donors.
They argue that the telecoms essentially paid for the Republican congressmen
to be elected and now they're asking them to return the favor.

III. What's in the Bill?

Whether the telecom monopolists "bought" the NC Congress's vote or
whether Congress really sought to create a "level playing field" with
the most earnest of intentions, it's important to consider what's actually in
the bill itself.

The bill begins by spelling out a set of provisions with which municipal
service providers must comply. Some of these provisions are redundant
with existing federal laws but seem to serve as a vehicle to insert language
inferring that municipal internet is somehow "discriminating" against
telecoms.

For example, Provision 5 states that the municipal services:

Shall provide nondiscriminatory access to private communications
service providers on a first-come, first-served basis to rights-of-way, poles,
or conduits owned, leased, or operated by the city unless the facilities have
insufficient capacity for the access and additional capacity cannot reasonably
be added to the facilities. For purposes of this subdivision, the term
"nondiscriminatory access" means that, at a minimum, access shall be
granted on the same terms and conditions as that given to a city-owned communications
service provider.

The Clinton administration's Telecommunications
Act of 1996 forces all implementers of U.S. telecommunications
networks to interconnect their networks and allow for common use. Thus it
is unclear exactly why this language is necessary. Again, this appears
designed to paint a misleading picture, suggesting that there's some sort of
phantom conspiracy against business where there is none.

Other provisions offer confusing limitations to the powers of local government.
For example one bans the use of city funds to finance the projects.
It states:

Shall not subsidize the provision of communications service with
funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue
source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water,
sewer, or garbage services.

In other words, Republicans are arguing, even if local citizens want to band
together and spend local government funds on municipal projects they are
prohibited from doing so. Thus the state government is essentially
robbing the citizens of the right to self-governance, because they argue, the
locals might make an "immoral" decision to threaten the local telecom's
monopoly/duopoly.

Provision 9 offers a further restriction:

The city shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an
amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service
provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is
located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city-owned
communications service provider because of its government status and a sum
equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city-owned
communications service provider were a private communications service provider.

In other words, the city has to pay local taxes to itself. The point is
not just to inconvenience the projects, though. Combined with the
previous provision it means that the city has to yearly apply taxes to itself
which cannot be returned to reinvest in the internet service. This puts
the service at a bafflingly disadvantageous web of self-taxation and denial of
funding.

Provision 8 puts municipal services at an even greater disadvantage, stating,
"[They] shall not price any communications service below the cost of
providing the service."

Thus local governments are outlawed from offering the kinds of promotional
rates that telecoms regularly provide. So while the bill claims to be
"fair" it clearly creates a situation that gives the monopolistic
telecoms at advantages by granting them additional rights and privileges that
the local government is forbidden access to.

The bill offers exemptions to existing services, but the exemptions do not
cover the most damaging provisions (outlined above). Thus existing
services will be affected virtually the same as new services.

The legislation does contain an additional measure that may further block new
services, though.

The bill states that all municipalities looking to implement new services must
first go through a number of steps (hold two town hall meetings on the issue,
collect bids, hold a special election on the topic of incurring private sector
debt to finance the project, etc.). All of these steps seem relatively
reasonable, and are in fact in line with what occurred with many of the current
projects.

But the "catch" as they say, is that the city then has to submit a
proposal to a state Commission. That Commission will have complete
authority whether to accept or reject the proposal. States the bill:

The city or joint agency
making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion
with respect to subdivisions (1) through (4) of this section.

Thus while the bill does not ban new municipal internet projects, it hands the
state government the legal power to do so.

The decision by state Republicans to allow state government to ban local
citizens from self-governance at their discretion is a particularly surprising
one given that the national Republican party has emphasized shrinking federal
government and putting more power in the hands of local governments.

The big winners here are clearly the politicians who obtained the finances they
needed to get into office and the telecoms, who move a step closer to
safeguarding their monopolies from pesky municipal projects.

The biggest losers are local governments and the state's citizens. For
all their hard work in creating cash-positive municipal services that beat the
quality and price of previous monopoly/duopoly offerings, they now must fear
that their service may be slowly choked and shut off by the state government.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You must've missed the OP's statement about the Dems that also turned tail. And it's something I'd like for him to update, as I feel that he tried to paint this entirely as the fault of the right wing at the end of his article (not so much that I feel it; he actually did)... You could've had a 100% Dem legislature and the money would've still found a way in. Just ask Mel Watt.

Recall the push for national healthcare. You had a Dem White House, Senate and House. Total control. No opposition. And instead of getting the Utopian dream of socialized medicine that you were promised, you got forked over to private insurance companies:) And it's mandated too -lol. At least one Dem spoke up, recently, and said that the healthcare bill does zero to deal w/ the cost of medicine. He'll be fired promptly.

Wake up, kid. Business and banks run this country. Doesn't matter whose side you picked. If you like the spin the left puts out, when bending you over, by all means, enjoy. But don't be so foolish as to believe there's a difference between the two parties. Individuals? Maybe. Kucinich, Gravel, Nader, the Pauls? Those guys, yes. The rest; bought and paid for shills.

"The single biggest priority for the Republicans has always been eliminating inheritance taxes on the mega-wealthy. Tell me how that's going to improve the lives of the other 99+% of the people in this country."

I'll tell you. If you took however many billions those people had and divvied it up between each and every American, you'd have what? $2,000? $3,000 each? The 99+% of the country that you speak of would burn through that in a matter of weeks. So short answer is; everyone gets a new flat screen, about $100 goes toward paying the $7,000 credit card balanced that they 'swore they were going to put it all into paying off' and 3 or 4 nights of going to the movies after hogging out at the Sizzler... That's America. If I can deal with it, you can too.

I have no illusions about the Democratic party being immune to the corrupting influence of money - but they are definitely the lesser of two evils. Virtually every piece of progressive legislation in the last 100 years has come from the Democrats. If the powers behind the Republican party had their way, there would be no minimum wage, no Social Security, no unemployment insurance, no environmental laws, no corporate taxes, no unions; i.e., no legal limits on the economic behavior of the wealthy whatsoever - think Dickensian-era England.

What struck me about this article is that the Republicans are supposed to be about government getting out of the way of the average guy, yet here we have the direct opposite of that vaunted philosophy. The truth is that the Republicans are about government getting out of the way of the rich, they don't give a sh't about the average guy. Anybody with half a dozen brain cells has long ago seen through the Repubs.

About the health care fiasco: the Republicans fought that legislation tooth and nail, and they were one vote away from filibuster veto power, so Obama had to satisfy every Democrat, and some of the Dems are in the pocket of either big-money home-state insurance interests and/or prey to conservative electorates. If Obama had had even a few Republican supporters, he could have crafted a much better health-care law. However, in that whole debate, the Republicans were never interested in giving this country a decent health-care system; it was defeat Obama, no matter what the substance of the proposed law, at any cost, and f'ck those who couldn't afford heath care.

That business and banks run this country is not something I would argue with.

Who cares how much progressive taxes on the rich would put in everyone's pocket, the issue is interesting because it clearly shows where the Republican priorities lie, with the rich.

quote: I have no illusions about the Democratic party being immune to the corrupting influence of money - but they are definitely the lesser of two evils.

Please, ALL politicians are after two things, and two things only: your money and your vote. If you think they actually care about "giving this country a decent health-care system" or any other "piece of progressive legislation" they are selling, you are blind. What they care about is maintaining the illusion that they are acting on the behalf of the people that elected them into office so they can continue to enjoy the lifelong free ride. If it pleases you to believe the shit they are selling smells better because it comes in a red package instead of blue, then by all means buy it up, but the box is still going to be filled with nothing but a pile of steaming turds.

The lesser of two evils is an argument that I hear all the time. It's just another way of saying compromise. Personally, I don't compromise on anything. It's too bad that the left wing did. They could've had a real liberal in office. If the right hadn't compromised, they could've, at least, voted for a real conservative. Instead, they had corporatists on both sides. Mr. Reach-Across-The-Isle McCain would've been faced with a left wing House and Senate wanting to push health care. He would've capitulated, in the American way. "We're not going to do this like the Europeans. We're going to do it through private business." You'd have ended up right where you are now. Of course, more tax breaks for the top 1%. And of course more war. Ideologue Noam Chomsky has even referred to Obama as nothing more than a 3rd term for Bush. It can't be denied. A compromised vote gets you exactly what you deserve.

What astounds me is that people fall for it over and over, cycle after cycle. It'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad. "It's not my fault. I did what the TV told me to."

Virtually every piece of progressive legislation in the last 100 years has come from the Democrats. I'm going to assume that's a joke, as it's the majority of Democrats that identify themselves as progressives... Minimum wage? Minimum wage was never anything more than legalized slavery. The fact that you can pay some chump $8/hr to do the dirtiest job isn't exactly a 'win' that I'd put on my resume... Social Security is there b/c people aren't disciplined enough to do anything smart with their money (like save it). It'll soon be going the way of the dodo... Unemployment insurance? If I had a nickel for every person I know that's sitting on their ass, waiting for their free handout to run out... Environmental laws? That used to be the jobs of the courts. If someone dumped crap into your stream and you got sick, you sued them out of existence. It set a precedent for others to follow. But as is usually the case, our government knows better. And you'll soon be told what light bulb to use, what toilet to flush, what car to drive, etc etc. It's called UN Agenda: 21 'Sustainable Development'. And we were signed up to it by George Bush Sr. A fun snippet from one of their workbooks states that 'generally higher educated people consume more resources, while lower educated people consume less. Therefore, higher education is not in the interests of sustainable development'... No corporate taxes? Ronald Reagan was the first president to attempt to close the corporate tax loopholes (not looking good for your progressive legislation originating from Democrats). No unions? You probably have no idea what unions were and what they are today. You probably just use the blanket term. As an IATSE Local member, I will tell you, first-hand, that labor unions, as they are in this country, are a complete and utter sham. They're nothing more than big business, hidden in the cloak of a social cause. If you ever start your own business, you'd do well to keep them out... No legal limits on the economic behaviour of the wealthy? And the Justice Department has prosecuted exactly how many bankers so far? Oh. I'm sorry. They're busy telling an Ohio police department that they have to lower their entrance exams from an already abysmally low 65 to 50 (because the racial make up of their force isn't diverse enough).

What struck me about this article is that the Republicans are supposed to be about government getting out of the way of the average guy, yet here we have the direct opposite of that vaunted philosophy. How insightful. Sadly, you missed one of my main points (and apparently one of your own), when we both agreed that politicians don't work for their representatives (at least not all of them). They're owned by banks and business. Obama said it best, when during one of his SOTUs, he said that there'd be no audit of the Federal Reserve. Want to talk about real progressive legislation? There you had it. And there you had the government and private Federal Reserve pissing themselves.

Anybody with half a dozen brain cells has long ago seen through the Repubs. Then I guess it takes a few more to see that no matter who takes the helm, the boat stays on the same course... The thing is that no one wants to hear dissenting opinion. They just want to read and watch whatever reaffirms their own beliefs. If they got both sides, they might be able to read between the lines. But pick your poison, eh?

Would you like a decent health care system? I'll give you one. Bar insurance companies from paying for anything but the most extreme emergencies. Now let that simmer for a bit.

Who cares how much progressive taxes on the rich would put in everyone's pocket, the issue is interesting because it clearly shows where the Republican priorities lie, with the rich. The point is that it wouldn't matter if you taxed the rich off the planet. If you started every person in the country with banks accounts of $100k, in ten years, we'd be right back to where we are. There are a ton of people that just want to spend their money (good little Keynesians) and very few that want to save it. If you're the type that likes to save, don't be surprised, when some guy comes knocking on your door and demanding half of it because his is all gone. He'll have a pile of excuses lined up... On the other hand, if you just want to bash on the illusion of 'the Republican' then peel open another banana, fill your head with more rage and start pounding on the keyboard.

And of course you won't argue about banks and businesses running things. What must be sending you into a tailspin is that a fiscal conservative is saying the same thing.

I don't know where you're coming from; all I see is a lot of incoherent rage of the cynicism-is-easy, I'm-so-much-wiser-than-you-dupes variety. Meanwhile, back in the real world, choosing the lesser of two evils is usually the only choice we have. Let me know what you're doing to achieve this perfect world you pine for.

Your comment on reserving health care for terminal cases ignores the fact that it's far cheaper to provide preventative medicine than to wait until somebody needs a heart transplant - the old ounce of prevention adage.

Of course $8/hr minimum wage sucks, but it sucks less that the 4 most of these people would be getting if the Republicans had their way. No unemployment insurance and the laid-off guy with a family to feed would be forced to accept the first thing that came along, condemning himself to a downward spiral. Yah, brilliant point about Social Security, if we were all Warren Buffets, who would need SS. Unions are the only orgs in this country acting as a counterweight to the overwhelming power of business to dictate terms to the working guy. As the unions disappear, note how all the economic gains of the last 20 years have gone to the wealthiest 10% of the US population. What distinguishes your opinions is the sacrifice of practicality on the altar of ideological zeal.

You decry the influence of banks and big business on the legislative process, but claim to be a fiscal conservative. History has taught that when wealth is not controlled, the inevitable result is the concentration of ever increasing money and power in fewer and fewer hands; and human nature being what it is, the powerful will do everything they can to safeguard their privileges. The liberal policies right-wing fanatics so despise owe their very existence to the very-real excesses of unregulated wealth. Ever study European economic history, ever read Oliver Twist? The laissez-faire, Ayn-Rand guys are just as impractical as the Marxists: both economic systems - theories divorced from the realities of human nature - lead to the abuse of the many by the few.

If the world really were run as the rich behind the Republican "egalitarian" facade desire, there would be no meritocracy or equality for anyone who couldn't afford it. Already, the better Ivy League schools have expressed concern that they can't find enough qualified students from lower income families - but then how can someone whose parents can't pay the rent or feed themselves hope to send their kids to the elite institutions that exist to prepare students for the better universities. I went to university surrounded by these "hot house" kids; students who were sent off to Europe for the summer holidays to study languages, attended violin lessons fours times a week form the age of 4, did application-friendly charity work, had expensive tutors to prepare them for the SATs and help write their application essays. None of the roommates I had at college had ever worked a day in their lives. Meritocracy in this country died years ago. Even the arch-conservative Economist magazine did a piece on the myth of American meritocracy. If you're one of the rare conservatives who ever read dissenting opinions, check it out: http://www.economist.com/node/3518560

What really pisses me off is the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the naivety of those who buy into their lies. Turning to the Republicans because you think the Democrats are not representing the interests of the common man, is like turning to Mafioso loan sharks because you think the local bank is charging too high a processing fee on your checks.

Typical of Republican hypocrisy is the Koch brothers. When one ran as the vice-president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, he promised to abolish, among other things, Social Security, welfare, minimum-wage laws, and corporate taxes - all those things that make being rich in this country such a bummer. Were supposed to think that if the billionaire Kochs don't need Social Security or minimum wage guarantees, no American does. Welcome to the sweet life of the new American hereditary aristocrat.

The Koch brothers are living examples of how success is yours for the taking in the US. Unlike the lazy poor working minimum-wage jobs at Micky D's, these hard-working guys pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, taking the paltry 300 million dollars/oil company they inherited from daddy and turning it into a billion dollar empire. They did well at the elite schools dad sent them to. Since these average guys showed us all how it can be done with no help from anyone but mega-rich dad, why do we need big gov't looking out for the poor in this great country of ours? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party is being financed by these small-gov't, get-out-of-my-rich-face Koch types?

That's right middle-class America, the mega-rich have the solution to all your economic problems: just drop your pants, bend over, grab your ankles and wait for all that tickle-down goodness from the billionaire backers of the Tea Party and their legislative lap-dogs in the Republican Party. Apparently, being buttfk'd by the people you so admire just feels so good - well enjoy it, it's as close to being a member of the Republican elite as the toadies to the rich are going to get.

"Recall the push for national healthcare. You had a Dem White House, Senate and House. Total control. No opposition.

That's BS and you know it. Does the word filibuster ring a bell?

"Wake up, kid. Business and banks run this country. Doesn't matter whose side you picked. If you like the spin the left puts out, when bending you over, by all means, enjoy. But don't be so foolish as to believe there's a difference between the two parties."

And your nihilism is not helping old man. I see only one party actively engaging in class warfare despite your platitudes. You can stick your head in the sand and do your they are both as bad speech, or you can make sure things don't get any worse then they are. This "oh they are both just as bad" crap worked so well in 2000 huh.

Now who is full of BS? The bill was passed in the Senate by reconciliation (50 votes + Biden), and therefore filibuster had no effect.

quote: I see only one party actively engaging in class warfare despite your platitudes

You're right, the democrats are actively engaged in class warfare. Their solution for EVERYTHING is to tax the rich and redistribution of wealth. Every excuse in the book you can find - racism, sexism, sexual orientation, immigration status, etc - are all actively being used as excuses to increase taxes and create more entitlements for the 40% who do NOT pay taxes.

quote: "oh they are both just as bad" crap worked so well in 2000 huh.

Well, it hasn't worked out so well since 2008 has it? That was the argument against McCain is that he was just as liberal as Obama...a closet Rhino. In turn, we've been stuck with do nothing, hypocritical dolt who's only concern is taxing the rich, giving handouts to the black population, and telling everyone we should like Muslims.

"The bill was passed in the Senate by reconciliation (50 votes + Biden), and therefore filibuster had no effect."

The bill that ultimately passed was not the same bill that was originally put fourth now was it? It had to get quite a few things stripped out of it because the republicans would have forced the requirement for 60 votes to include a public option. Which incidentally is the same issue the article is talking about when it comes to telecoms... municipal internet was essentially a public option.

"You're right, the democrats are actively engaged in class warfare. Their solution for EVERYTHING is to tax the rich and redistribution of wealth. Every excuse in the book you can find - racism, sexism, sexual orientation, immigration status, etc - are all actively being used as excuses to increase taxes and create more entitlements for the 40% who do NOT pay taxes."

I don't know why people on this site keep spouting stuff when it can be verified in minutes. Show me one example of the current administration raising taxes on the rich. ONE. On the other hand, redistribution of wealth is exactly what we have with the republicans. What do you think corporate tax breaks are? That's money that's not going into the budget. Who do you think will have to pay for that budget shortfall? And funny, I could have sworn just the other day there was an article about GE not paying taxes... cry me a friggin river.

"Well, it hasn't worked out so well since 2008 has it? That was the argument against McCain is that he was just as liberal as Obama...a closet Rhino. In turn, we've been stuck with do nothing, hypocritical dolt who's only concern is taxing the rich, giving handouts to the black population, and telling everyone we should like Muslims."

Or it could have had something to do with the possibility of oh, I don't know, president Palin? And oh yeah, that McCain was real liberal, you know instigating a war with Russia over Georgia and all. As for the other stuff you said, seems to me this do nothing president just started a war in Lybia... something I don't support. He loves Muslims so much he decided to bomb them. Funny that. He also signed an extension of tax cuts for the rich... yeah, that taxing the rich thing is going really swell.

quote: Show me one example of the current administration raising taxes on the rich. ONE.

How about the tanning bed tax for one - not many poor people use a tanning bed. In fact, I'm pretty sure not many black people use that either, no?

How about we look just at his proposed 2012 budget in terms of taxation?1. Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike2. Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%3. Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike4. Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. $321 billion/ten year tax hike5. New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years6. Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years7. Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years8. Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years9. Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.

quote: What do you think corporate tax breaks are? That's money that's not going into the budget.

I'm not sure if you're being naive, or if you're really that obtuse. Corporations DO NOT pay taxes. How many times do people have to say it? If you increases taxes on a corporation, all they do is increase the price of the products to offset it, forcing the tax increase to be paid by the normal middle class consumer. A tax on business is nothing more than a tax on the middle class employee - no matter how you spin it. You may as well just take every tax bracket and add a few percent tax to it if you're talking about increasing the corporate tax rate or getting rid of corporate tax breaks.

quote: Who do you think will have to pay for that budget shortfall?

You really are a moron. The people who pay for the products are the same ones who will pay for the budget shortfall. In case you haven't noticed, corporations don't make money out of thin air. Everything they have coming to them comes from the CONSUMER...aka the TAXPAYER.

quote: He also signed an extension of tax cuts for the rich... yeah, that taxing the rich thing is going really swell.

He had no choice. The 2010 election sealed his fate. Obama did try to tax the rich. Here are his own words:

quote: "I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

"How about the tanning bed tax for one - not many poor people use a tanning bed. In fact, I'm pretty sure not many black people use that either, no?"

You have figures to back that up? According to the tanning industry itself this effects an estimated 28 million people. You're seriously going to tell me that most of them are rich?

"How about we look just at his proposed 2012 budget in terms of taxation?"

Congratulations on simply pasting NRCC talking points. There's only one problem... This is a proposed budget, which as of right now means absolutely nothing. We haven't even passed the budget for this year yet!Second, if you actually read the budget, instead of cherry picked propaganda you'd realize that this is simply dishonest. It's the result of letting Bush's old tax cuts expire. Tax cuts that were supposed to expire anyway but got extended... by the democrats.Frankly I WISH they'd increase the rates to the levels they were under clinton. They haven't done that, that's the whole point. Also why anyone making less then 250,000 would see this as a bad thing if it actually was true is beyond me.

"I'm not sure if you're being naive, or if you're really that obtuse. Corporations DO NOT pay taxes. How many times do people have to say it? If you increases taxes on a corporation, all they do is increase the price of the products to offset it, forcing the tax increase to be paid by the normal middle class consumer."

Now that is just precious. Of course they pay taxes. (Unless they find loopholes or receive tax breaks). You're seriously arguing that we should make them not pay any taxes because they might raise their prices and take it out on the consumer? And you call me a moron?! You want us to live like hostages?

"A tax on business is nothing more than a tax on the middle class employee - no matter how you spin it."

Don't be stupid. By that logic a tax decrease to business would mean instant savings to the middle class. That obviously doesn't happen no matter how many times trickle down fanatics like you repeat it. Businesses can raise their prices at any time for any reason.

"You really are a moron. The people who pay for the products are the same ones who will pay for the budget shortfall."

They will pay alright! But not for the reason you state. Let me explain this simple concept since you obviously don't get it... The government takes in less tax money from big business because they gave them a tax cut. They now have a budget shortfall. But the government still needs that money to function. They have only two choices, spend money they don't have (creating a bigger deficit), or raise taxes on everyone else (who is not big business) to cover that income disparity. Of course if the government is really retarded (like say you're the governor of florida) you can increase your deficit by giving tax breaks, while at the same time redistribute the wealth, redirecting say your education budget to those tax cuts for business. Now you have shittier schools, and you STILL have a deficit. Brilliant stuff.

I dont know which side you think it engaging in class warfare, but i think its clear both sides have used it when it gives them an advantage. Although it always seems like the democrats are more vocal about it when they use it.

This all boils down to which ideology you agree with and then voting for those that are on the same page. Thats how change is made. If you stop caring and just assume everyone running for office is the same, then nothing will change.

As far as the health care bill goes, i agree that there was opposition, but there wasnt much they could do. Yes there is the filibuster but it wouldnt have stopped the Dems ultimately, it would have just been spun as Republicans being the bad guy. Maybe they should have just left congress like they did in Wisconsin.